Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 458 F.2d 1115 - Euresti v. Stenner

Euresti v. Stenner’s Empirical Analysis

458 F.2d 1115 · 1972

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
7
states following
August 2005
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 2005 · most notably Holbrook v. Pitt (1981), Curtis Ambulance of Florida, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee (1987)

35 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

3701972198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 291 · 42 U.S.C. § 291M

Relies on Flast v. Cohen · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc v. B Camp Barlow · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby · Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co. · United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]ith this clear intent, it is not decisive that the language of the Act included no explicit indication that indigents were to have a right to enforce the Act’s provisions. A civil remedy may be implied for those clearly within the protective realm of legislation or regulations in the public interest. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33 , 40, 36 S.Ct. 482 , 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “reasonable assurance that at all times after such application is approved (i) the facility or portion thereof to be constructed, modernized, or converted will be made available to all persons residing or employed in the area served by the facility, and (ii) there will be made available in the facility or portion thereof to be constructed, modernized, or converted a reasonable volume of services to persons unable to pay therefor and the Secretary, in determining the reasonableness of the volume of services provided, shall take into consideration the extent to which compliance is feasible from a financial viewpoint.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a reasonable volume of services to persons unable to pay therefor”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.